‘Global Temperature’ — Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And I consider myself to be pretty much on the fence about this. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of what both sides claim.

Same here. That gets us the "climate denier" label, however.

Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

Actually, I had one last week, too, but next week starts a whole 'nuther month!

Did it hurt?

Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

Except it's not the same measurement. There are far fewer temperature stations now than in years past, many of those stations are no longer optimally placed due to urban expansion, huge swaths of the earth have no temperature stations (notably many of the earth's coldest regions), and the data, including the historic record, has been "adjusted" so many times that it is now thoroughly corrupted and untrustworthy.

It is the same measurement MM in all the ways that matter. No it is not a measurement made from exactly the same set of stations for the last 100 years, but to think that invalidates the results is ignorance. We have better ways of assessing the global temperature today than we did. Better stations, better compensating algorithms, more comprehensive data sets and sources - e.g. satellite data. Care is taken to make the global average the most accurate measurement possible year over year, including compensations for know biases in older data, which produces things that are hard to understand for some like Time Of Measurement Bias adjustments and the like. Oversimplified statements like the above simply don't reflect reality in any meaningful way.

Jim

He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

It is the same measurement MM in all the ways that matter. No it is not a measurement made from exactly the same set of stations for the last 100 years, but to think that invalidates the results is ignorance.

What invalidates the results is the amount of "massaging" that has to be done to paper over the numerous coverage gaps, and how the historic record has been irreparably corrupted by arbitrary "adjustments" designed to fit the hypothesis rather than adjusting the hypothesis to fit the data.

Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God